There are some scientific misconceptions in the video but the overarching message is correct that this substance should not be used the way it is. These are not "bombs" they're DU penetrators. The main danger is not from external beta or gamma radiation from the U238 as these levels are very very low but instead from the alpha particles given off by the substance. Because of the extreme pyrophoricity of U, the metal is turned into a fine uranium oxide powder on impact and it is the inhallation of these particles which continually irradiate lung tissue with alpha particles that's dangerous. The lady at the end Leuren Moret, is not a nuclear physicist, she has a degree in geology and no particular expertise in the area of nuclear radiation. Saying that areas where DU weapons are used will be contaminated FOREVER is also pretty misleading. The half life may be very long but the uranium particles will diffusely dissipate over large areas on time scales vastly shorter than the half life, thus rendering it harmless. This uranium was mined from the earth to begin with and uranium is naturally found in dust everywhere on the planet because its a very common element. It is only the high concentrations of pure uranium oxide dust that are produced by DU penetrators which are created immediately at the site of use that are especially dangerous.

Good video and rather scary. Thanks for the extra info Gluonium.

Um, is there audio? I hear nada. Even with everything cranked up. Other videos were fine.

ant yes there is audio. if you're using opera i've noticed a bug that puts a limit on how many youtube videos can have audio available to them. If you reach that limit (seems to vary) the next youtube video you look at will appear to have no audio (when in fact it does)... I'm not sure where the limit is, it happens to me on opera 9.2 winxp. if you're using opera, just close some videosift tabs i guess.

Gluonium, you know about the increasing incidence of birth defects and cancer in Iraq, don't you? I'm not buying that the uranium dust is being safely dispersed, with radioactive levels same as found in nature. Pregnant Iraqi women are coming into contact with harmful, genetically mutating elements, somehow. You reckon it's just something in the water?
http://www.videosift.com/video/Rising-incidence-of-birth-defects-in-Iraqi-babies

aren't A10's fitted with depleted uranium rounds every x rounds, to this day? i don't think it's illegal per the Geneva convention, though I certainly disagree with the usage in this manner...

That's not at all what I'm arguing persephone. The current situation with DU contamination in Iraq is serious to say the least. All I'm refuting is the idea that the entire area has been rendered uninhabitable for geologic timescales as Moret suggests simply because the half life of U238 is very long. What is being neglected is that uranium and thorium and radioactive potassium are found absolutely everywhere on the planet in dust form (some places more than others) and the uranium used to make these things was mined from rocks. I am saying that instead of taking 4 billion years or whatever to become a safe area again and only considering the half life of uranium is incorrect in that it does not factor into the problem the dispersal of the uranium dust in the area. That dust, especially since Iraq is no stranger to annual huge wind storms is going to be dispersed on vastly shorter timescales than 4 billion years. I'd guess that as long as you get rid of the contaminated tanks etc. themselves (bury them), that background levels of U in the region would return within 50-100 years simply due to this dispersal effect. Yes, that is still quite a while(!) and obviously the situation remains very serious right now, I certainly would not want to be living there, but to say the whole place is just condemned forever is certainly grossly inaccurate. Bottom line is that, like land mines, we should not be using wapons that make a place dangerous for anywhere near even these periods of time.

There was an interesting discussion over at:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=67401

I'm still a bit skeptical. I mean come on, a regular old lead round has a similar toxic effect if it enters your body. Maybe we should contract Nerf to make our weapons.

Depleted uranium is not a significant health hazard unless it is taken into the body. External exposure to radiation from depleted uranium is generally not a major concern because the alpha particles emitted by its isotopes travel only a few centimeters in air or can be stopped by a sheet of paper. Also, the uranium-235 that remains in depleted uranium emits only a small amount of low-energy gamma radiation. However, if allowed to enter the body, depleted uranium, like natural uranium, has the potential for both chemical and radiological toxicity with the two important target organs being the kidneys and the lungs.
http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/depletedu/health/index.cfm

Now look at lead:

Lead is a very strong poison. When a person swallows a lead object or inhales lead dust, some of the poison can stay in the body and cause serious health problems. A single high, toxic dose of lead can cause severe emergency symptoms. However, it is more common for lead poisoning to build up slowly over time. This occurs from repeated exposure to small amounts of lead. In this case, there may not be any obvious symptoms, but the lead can still cause serious health problems over time, such as difficulty sleeping or lowered IQ in children.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002473.htm

Maybe we should just think a little harder about not going to war in the first place.

From an Australian Parlimentary proceeding regarding the Lancelin Defence Training Area. It's kinda funny Rokke gets hit pretty hard.
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/hans35.nsf/451a59fb51257dd248256c85002bc738/d5a84c09a211cadd48256d8600336c20?OpenDocument

Leuren Moret "says she specializes in "the study of the damaging effects of low level radiation" - 3:35 min
- Look again at her education and ask if that makes any sense what so ever?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuren_Moret
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Rokke

Australian Parliament is difficult enough to listen to, let alone wade through its recorded text, but thanks for the link, Clayton.

The wikipedia article on Rokke is undergoing dispute as to its neutrality.

Doncha wish you could be everywhere at all times and really know the TRUTH?

To really understand the issue one needs to know how DU is used, mostly as a kinetic force penetrator in ammunition. DU is very dense; at 19050 kg/m³, it is almost 70% denser than lead, thus a given weight of it has a smaller diameter than an equivalent lead projectile, with less aerodynamic drag and deeper penetration due to a higher pressure at point of impact. DU projectile ordnance is often incendiary because of its pyrophoric property.

So upon impact the DU tip vaporises and spreads into the air, since DU rounds usually hit a combustible target and there is a subsequent explosion the spread of the material is wide. This was all covered after Gulf War when DU first started getting used widely and created the now commonly known Gulf War Sickness or Balkans War Sickness.

Various goverment studies keep pushing the question back and forth between goverment committees as the issue of exposure, since no scientific based way can be worked about how DU gets into the human system, so some reports say there is too little to cause harm and others say it depends on exposure and the issue basically starts to revolve on how people get it into their system, how much is lethal, etc etc.

At the end of the day the fact is that even though we have various treaties prevent the use of chemically and biological arms, DU is not covered within any of them, and the issue is such that nothing can really be done until a treaty can be worked out on DU usage. That is not likely to happen anytime soon. The US, France, UK and other nations actively use DU as the cheapest form of kinetic penetrator known to man, and shot down various treaties designed to go against the usage of DU.

Regarding this debate, the above mentioned working paper published in 2002 by the United Nations Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, at paragraph 171 under the title "Moratorium" reads:

“Considering the disturbing reports on the ill effects of DU weapons in the Gulf and the Balkans, it is saddening to note that so far appeals for a moratorium coming from different quarters have not yet prevailed. Killing first and asking questions later has, however, never been a sensible solution.

Farhead, you last sentence is deeply shocking...